Jump to content

User talk:Raul654

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Marshman (talk | contribs) at 17:33, 21 July 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


For your tireless work in making Wikipedia better, for keeping MediaWiki:Feature up-to-date, for doing the grunt work of cleaning up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, for mediating in disputes, for adding lots of really nice pictures, and for still finding the time to work on articles! In a few months you've already become a highly valued member of the community. Stay with us and don't burn out, please. --Eloquence Apr 10, 2004

Talk-page archive

More Pruning on AotW

Hey Raul,

I think we should wait until the new article has been selected to prune, to allow the most number of votes and the most chance. Cheers. Burgundavia 07:23, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

The ones I removed had all been there for more than 2 months, had less than 9 votes (thus putting them around 9th or 10th in line), and hadn't gotten any new votes in a long time. In the future though, you're right - after selecting a new article, it might be a good idea to prune. →Raul654 15:16, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Penal interest

Hi there! I noticed that you deleted my redirect to Penal interest. I put it there because I couldn't find an article on Penal interest either, and wrote one. Could you give some hints on what the statement against penal interest is? Thanks! Mark Richards 01:16, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's a legal term - an exception to the rule excluding hearsay. I don't know much more about it than that. →Raul654 01:23, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Traditional counties of England

I just promoted this to FA thinking it had been a week. It had been six days. Then Morwen pointed out six days really is stretching 'approx two weeks' ... I shall put it back if you like - David Gerard 17:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For promoting (not removing), the rule is "at least a week" - so technically, yes, you should put it back. But unringing the bell is pretty hard, so don't worry about it unless someone complains. Just for future refernece, be aware that promoted articles have to stay there at least a week. →Raul654 17:58, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I'm keenly aware now! Even Morwen, who nominated it, was iffy ... - David Gerard 23:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just wanted to say "Good job"

Your dedication to featuring articles on the main page is great, and I appreciate the care you use in selecting them. Today, I noticed that http://www.theonering.net (probably the major Tolkien site on the web) was thrilled that Wikipedia was featuring McKellen, and just now a friend of mine emailed me and added a postscript wondering if I had anything to do with McKellen's appearance (he knows my involvement here and my Tolkien mania well :-). I told him it was actually the dedication of Raul654 that puts those articles up. I figured I'd let you know I appreciate what you do, and tell others. :-) See you around, Jwrosenzweig 20:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Stop removing my nominations

anthony (see warning)


Thanks. But...

I hate intimidations/warnings for silly things - if you had meant that way! I did not ask you to do it. I do not post my responses in my talk page. So, please don't be misled looking at my talk page. I am not a newbie - fyi. And just like everybody else, I too consider all other human beings are dumb idiots :) --Drbalaji md 01:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on being the one to add the 300,000th article (Rene Gagnon). I see it has had 12 edits already, probably as a result of being listed on the Announcements page. What is strange is that you apparently added that to the Announcements page 8 minutes before you created the new article. How did you manage that trick? Prescience? ~ Nanobug 12:33, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I posted to announcements about an hour or two after I made the article. You might want to turn off your UTC-offset and recheck the timestamps. →Raul654 15:27, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for being civil!

Thanks for acting in a civil manner on Checks and balances. Naturally I think you're utterly utterly *wrong* ;-P but at least you're being civil about it, and that's great. There's plenty of people who see red when discussing political topics. (Um, maybe me too sometimes.)

(Note: I won't do any discussing here, since I think that should be kept to the relevant article talk page :-) .)

Have a nice day! Kim Bruning 21:44, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are correct that it's a matter for the talk page, and not here. However, everyone is supposed to be civil - see Wikipedia:Wikiquette. →Raul654 21:47, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Yup. and actually I meant to post this to User:Roadrunner which I'd better do now.Whoops! But you're a very civil person as well. And hmm, you're actually right, not wrong :) Kim Bruning 21:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ha! Now you made me smile :) →Raul654 21:57, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Promoting FAC — consensus

Hi Raul, just wanted to raise a small concern about the recent promotion of two Featured Article Candidates, namely Charles Graner and Fractal (noms archived at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log). I don't think these had reached a consensus to promote; Charles Graner in particular had (by my count) one vote of support and one objection, and a neutral vote (in addition to the nomination). While consensus certainly isn't unanimity (and I'm very happy with the process of e.g. Great Mosque of Djenne being promoted), equally, consensus isn't simple majority, either. Anyway, I hope I haven't come across as just moaning (because I think you do a great job overseeing WP:FAC), but I thought it important enough to mention. — Matt 17:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was going to bring this up on the talk page - the problem on the FAC is that people are no longer supporting articles very much - just objecting. It makes guaging consensus quite difficult. I have to assume that answered objections are supports, for example. Fractals had few votes at all, and most of those (as best I could tell) were resolved. For Graner, all of the objections had been addressed except two of yours, "too much quoting" and "overwikified" - relatively minor ones that will be flattened out should it come up on the main page (which, given that he is a current-events topic, probably won't be for a while). Anyway, I think you can see the problem - with people only voting object, I have to guess what people are thinking (otherwise, we'd be stuck only promoting unanimious/uncontested noms, and those are fairly rare). →Raul654 18:40, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
OK, I can see the difficulty, and thanks for explaining. Some thoughts: 1) There seem to be some people who don't realise that an article can be promoted even with objections; accordingly, perhaps they don't bother to "support" when they see it tagged as "contested". Perhaps we can be slightly more explicit about consensus in the "instructions" section? Currently we have "If there are objections, a consensus must be reached."; perhaps something like, "If there are any objections, a consensus must be reached (for example, if the large majority of reviewers express support, then the article will be promoted)." 2) I would be cautious when assuming that "answered objections are supports". There's a difference between not objecting (which is often a silent vote, although some people explicitly write neutral), and supporting. People sometimes list objections in "phases", going through an article again much more carefully once gross problems are sorted out. Personally, I'll object to an article if I can see any obvious flaws, but only actively support articles which seem "excellent" and well-written (in some vague sense). I guess that others may work similarly. 3) If an article is unable to inspire more than one person to vote "support", then I think we should be careful in promoting it. For this reason, I might even suggest — and I'm aware that we should be wary of introducing further complexity to the FAC process — a requirement of two or three "second support" votes before promoting. — Matt 23:54, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Drbalaji's point

(copied from User talk:Drbalaji_md)

Drbalaji does make a good point, which you have not made any counterargument to: if a single person selects the featured article, his/her choice will be guided by the information that s/he is exposed to, thus limiting the cultural diversity of the choice, and failing to proportionally represent the information that s/he is 'not' exposed to, by no fault of their own. It might be feasible to have a voting mechanism for featured articles. This would diversify the base of information that determines the selection of the featured article. Drbalaji argues, furthermore, that he is aware of a feeling among people that wikipidia is not international enough in certain areas, specifcally and problematically the selection of the featured article. He states that he is aware of a representative population that do not use or contribute to wikipedia for these reasons. He concludes that if such areas could be made to more proportionally represent the cultural distribution of the world, more people would use wikipedia, and it's reputation would improve. He puts forth the opinion that this may be ample reason to find a practical and feasible method to put a system in place which provides a better solution to these problems. In this, he has addressed all of what you purport to be "lacking" in his argument. He did this in his first posting, before you claimed that these things were lacking.

And btw, please don't bite the newcomers. Kevin Baas 02:56, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

As I have said twice already, there *is* a mechanism for voting on featured articles - it is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. And (as I said once before) Drbalaji is aware of this too, because he has voted there.
Now I'll tell you the same thing I told Andrew (Fuzheado) in IRC - if the main page article selection is biased, it is because the selection of articles I have to choose from (at wikipedia:featured articles) is biased. If anything, non-western featured articles have been disprortionately favorably represtented on the main page - virtually all of them have been featured compared to about 50% of western articles.
If our non-western writers don't like this, the solution is simple - write more articles of featured-article quality, nominate them, fix objections as they are raised (which, during his last outing on the FAC, Drbalaji made no attempt to do). Once they become featured articles, I will happily put them on the main page, as I have done with the rest of the articles. →Raul654 03:26, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
Cool. You should tell this to him. Perhaps on his talk page. I'm just making sure you two understand each other. Kevin Baas 15:05, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

Regarding Drbalaji, he's on WP:RFC. If you have anything to say about the allegations toward him (I'm asking for your opinion as I see you have a history of prolonged interaction with this user), would you mind expressing yourself there? Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 15:01, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Praise

Since you seem to be getting flak about the featured articles you're putting on the main page, let me offer some compliments on your work to counterbalance that. Jwrosenzweig said it well above, and you deserve kudos for doing such a fine job. Of the four sections on the main page that rotate, I think featured articles have consistently shown the best balance in choosing a variety of subject matter - prominent and obscure, Western and non-Western, techie and artsy, ivory tower and pop culture. I wish the pool of featured articles was itself more balanced, but that's not a problem you can solve singlehandedly. Thanks for your dedication to that corner of Wikipedia. --Michael Snow 17:53, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. It's good to know that my efforts are appreciated. →Raul654 08:50, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Evidence of trolling?

Can you please provide evidence of trolling on the Trolling Poll page. If you read the comments, many people including myself, SecretLondon, Sam Spade, and Mark Richards do not think that the Missing Wikipedians list is evidence of trolling. If you really wish to get rid of trolling, then I request that you provide evidence of it. Thank you. Jrincayc 13:10, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Wait, let me get this straight - you want me to prove that trolling has tangible, negative side effects? →Raul654 16:48, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Yep. See Wikipedia:Trolling_poll#Question_3 and Wikipedia talk:Trolling poll. Sam [Spade] 16:51, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't need you to prove trolling has tangible, negative side effects. I want you to provide evidence that trolling has created harm on wikipedia. I believe that the definition of trolling (or disruption if you want to name it that) will cause disagreements and arguments and will make some people unhappy. So, I believe that the trolling policy you are proposing will cause harm. What I want to know is that not having the policy will create harm. To do that I want to see links to edits that are currently acceptable, but under the trolling policy would result in action. I want to know what is slipping through the current policy that requires a change. I want to see a case that harm is happening in Wikipedia due to trolls and that the change you are proposing will help. In short, I request that you provide evidence that trolling is harming wikipedia. Thank you. Jrincayc 01:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have created User:Raul654/Trolling effects which will hopefully answer your questions. →Raul654 01:39, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
yay, thanx raul. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 02:10, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Troll Poll

Hello, while I personally don't entirely agree with your troll poll for reasons, I do think you're being bold and doing a great job. If you do some more work on how to deal with trolling, I might even be persuaded to change my mind. Maybe I'll help too ... if I can think of how :-P.

But take home message of today is that I appreciate your work, and please don't take comments by people (espcially by me) personally, just because we happen to disagree with a particular version of it. :-)

Have a nice day! Read you soon, Kim Bruning 20:53, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How to get images permission

Hi Raul654. Last month you contributed to a discussion on the Wikipedia:Village pump about How to get images permission (see [1]). Since there were lots of people with questions, I created a Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial with some tips and hints. Let me know what you think. Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:09, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Help for a confused newcomer

Hi Raul, I have been wandering around this site for two days now, looking for a friendly face with whom to dialogue directly. I wonder if you would have the patience to help me? I posted a question on the help page, but wasn't sure that anyone would take the time to look there and answer me.
I work for a Information Technology software company, and we want to integrate Wikipedia's content into our software. I found the download page http://download.wikimedia.org/, but wondered if you had any more in depth suggestions for how to integrate the Wikimedia database into external software. Thank you very much in advance, Hannah 11:18, 15 Jul 2004

Featuring Olympic Games

Hi Raul,

Recently my self-nomination at the WP:FAC page, Olympic Games got promoted to featured status. As I wrote in my nomination, it would be great to have this article featured on August 13, the day the 2004 Olympics open in Athens. Do you think this is possible? Jeronimo 07:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry - current events topics are specifically reserved for in the news - the featured article is *not* supposed timely for just that reason. If you want, I can run it sometime before then (but we just had Olypmic flame on the main page recently, so it won't be for a couple weeks). →Raul654 07:29, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Images in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pok%E9nav|WikiProject Pokénav]] templates

As I said in my Edit Summary, please go to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokénav page before removing any more images from this WikiProject's templates to support your view there. Thanks,
--Fern 13:08, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have responded there. →Raul654 15:21, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Protection

Please remove your protection of Template:Feature. Wikipedia:Protection Policy clearly states that admins should "not protect a page [they] are involved in an edit dispute over." anthony (see warning)

Is it your intention to continue to remove the image, despite the fact that our policy clearly says otherwise? (That fair-use images are discouraged, not prohibited, from the main page) →Raul654 18:29, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
My intention is to either remove the image or replace it with another since there is no such policy. Even if there were a such policy, we arae clearly not at the point where we must use this image, so we should remove or replace it, even if it's only discouraged. anthony (see warning)
The same policy applies to the main page as to all other articles - we prefer free content images to fair use ones. Where none are available, fair use is ok. If you have a free image to replace it with, that's fine - I'll lift protection and you can replace it yourself (make sure it's in Jim Henson first). Otherwise, I have no intention of removing protection just so you can remove the image and continue the edit war. →Raul654 18:37, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
The same policy (which I'm still not aware of) may or may not apply, but the situation is different on the main page. There are a whole host of alternatives to using this image. Are you saying you're going to remove protection, or not? anthony (see warning)
I'm saying that until someone else shows me an alternative (free) image to use, I do not intend to remove protection solely to allow you to continue the edit war. →Raul654 18:47, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
I won't edit war if you don't. How about we just use a different article, like Galileo, while this issue is sorted out? anthony (see warning)
Replace the article? Absolutely not - the one time that was done was when there was a massive effort to POV the article (by a well known POV warrior). I didn't like it then because of the precedent it set, and I am certainly not going to remove this one now over a relatively trivial issue like this. Regardless, if there are a "whole host of alternatives" then simply add a free one to Jim Henson. Once I see it added, I'll lift protection. →Raul654 18:59, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
The alternatives involve featuring a different article. By the way, I'm not asking you to remove anything. I'm merely asking you to stop abusing your admin powers by protecting the page and editing it while protected. anthony (see warning)
Anthony, if you want the legalistic interpritation, fine: The article was put on the main page (with the picture) in full adherence to policy - no alternative has been presented, therefore fair use is OK. You have repeatedly removed it (and been reverted by multiple other users). Removing information like this (after being told that our policy explicetely allows it) is "indisputably bad-faith deletion" which is (according to policy) vandalism. Vandalism does allow an admin to protect an article which he is involved with. Furthermore, your recent blanking of the Jim Henson image (Image:Jimhensonmug.jpg) is another instance of vandalism (especially after you said above that there were a 'hosts of alternatives' - were you wrong then or are you vandalizing now?). →Raul654 19:10, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
The image was removed in full adherence to policy. Removing inappropriate images is not bad faith, and is not vandalism. anthony (see warning)

Perseus

Hello Raul, I could help but notice that you have moved Perseus (mythology) to Perseus, the latter being a disambiguation page since User:Looxix moved it there on April 2003. I think you meant well, but I suggest you check this What links here to get an idea of what now remains to be done. All the links that pointed to the former Perseus (mythology) page have to be adjusted (more than 60). And the interwikis in all foreign languages. I personally think it would be wiser and simpler to revert both pages, and adjust the few links (less than five, if you forget User and Talk pages) that point to Perseus. Sometimes, we have to adjust to what has been done and used. If you don't agree or if you want someone else's opinion, it can always be discussed on the the Talk pages Talk:Perseus or Talk: Perseus (mythology). In the meantime, let me know if you need any help on that matter. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 05:13, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A bot can fix the link problem, or (if need be) I'll do it manually. But the name "Persues" can refer pretty much to one of two things - the hero or the constellation. Since one (the constellation) is obvious derived from the other (the hero), the naming policy says that the article (Perseus) should refer to the hero. Basically - just because we have lots of links doesn't mean we should continue to support a bad name. →Raul654 05:18, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
I already knew about the two meanings. The naming policy And the disambiguation policy give many options. Yours is one. The other, which used Perseus as a disambiguation page is another. I personally don't think Perseus (mythology) is such a "bad name" to justify the change. Then why not do the same with every article that has the affix (mythology) (like Andromeda (mythology)) ? Again, it is a waste of time to change things that were not a problem or a mistake. Don't you think that this change causes more problems than it solves? Even if a bot can fix them (and they often lack judgement when it comes to disambiguation), does it fix the other users watch lists ? Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 15:52, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Feature

I'd like to have the issue of whether or not you are allowed to forcibly control template:feature mediated. Let me know if this is acceptable to you. anthony (see warning)

  • Hahaha, hey Raul, just got done with an edit war with anthony over the feature template. He kept changing the whole thing to Galileo. Kids. Anyway, the whole thing ended with Danny protecting the template and blocking anthony for 24 hours. Just thought I'd fill you in. blankfaze | (беседа!) 12:10, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I saw Danny message's on the mailing list first. All I can say is that I'm glad I wasn't involved. →Raul654 15:42, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

I've done some very extensive editing of Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ. In general I rearranged things to cover legal principles first and tried to avoid getting into Wikipedia policy as far as possible, because that's a discussion for other pages. A good thing for you to do as followup work is to integrate the fair use portion into Wikipedia:Fair use to move forward on transforming that from the largely ignored prior restraint system to a comprehensive guide to help people work out what is fair use here. I've been strongly disagreeing with Erik over the prior restraint aspect of the proposal, so I'd rather not go ahead with that directly myself - at least, not yet. Ideally I'd like Wikipedia:Fair use to contain something like the summary at Copright FAQ and then go into extensive detail on each factor in their own sections, with the summary as the opening to the section and extensive examples of court decisions and past examples from Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Then a recipe book of things which are fine and why. Jamesday 15:31, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Good work. I think I need to go in there now and dumb it down a shade ;) →Raul654 15:42, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

FAC promotions

Hi again, just wanted to query the promotion of Oceanic Whitetip Shark. I think it would be a stretch to conclude that there was a consensus to promote. I counted 4 objections compared to two "support"s (excluding the nominator) — moreover, a glance at the article shows six typos in the lead section alone — I'm happy to go and fix these, but I think we should only promote when there's a clear consensus. — Matt 23:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do not Revert

Do not revert honest attempts to make Wikipedia better. I am not vandalizing a page and I deserve more respect than that. I'm just as important a contributor as you are - Marshman 17:23, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The manual of style is not your personal soap-box. If you to express your opinions, then do so on the talk page, which is made for exactly that. →Raul654 17:26, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
If you would explain your move in the edit summary instead of reverting, you might gain respect around here. Reverting is for vandalism. I do not appreciate that aspproach, even if I agreed with your aim - Marshman
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raul654&oldid=4771057"